Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 21PSCV00253, Date: 2023-06-20 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.



Case Number: 21PSCV00253    Hearing Date: April 25, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

 

DEFENDANT TROY-CSL LIGHTING, INC.’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE RE PUNITIVE DAMAGES is GRANTED.

 

Background

 

This is a wrongful termination case. Plaintiff Raymond Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) alleges the following against Defendant TROY-CSL Lighting, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Troy”): Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in 2012. Plaintiff was terminated for violating Defendant’s sexual harassment policy, which was an excuse to terminate Plaintiff for making various complaints to Human Resources (HR) about workplace harassment.

 

On March 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit for:


1.     Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

2.     Breach Of Contract and Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

3.     Retaliation In Violation of Labor Code §§ 98.6 & 1102.5

 

On July 26, 2022, Defendant filed an MSJ. The hearing was on 6/20/23, after which the court took the MSJ under submission.

 

On June 21, 2023, the court issued its final ruling denying the motion. In its minute order, the court provided as follows:

 

The matter set on October 19, 2023, at the Pomona Courthouse in Department G at 10:30 a.m. for a Mandatory Settlement Conference, the matter set on December 5, 2023, at the Pomona Courthouse in Department O at 10:00 a.m. for a Final Status Conference, and the matter set on January 9, 2024, at the Pomona Courthouse in Department O at 1:30 p.m. for Jury Trial, are to remain as previously set.

 

On March 26, 2024, the instant motion was filed.

 

On April 18, 2024, the parties appeared for a final status conference.

 

Legal Standard

 

Defendant brings forth the motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 3295.

 

In turn, the statute, in relevant part, provides the following:

 

The court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of evidence of that defendant’s profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294. Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be admissible only as to the defendant or defendants found to be liable to the plaintiff and to be guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be presented to the same trier of fact that found for the plaintiff and found one or more defendants guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 3295, subd. (d), emphasis and underline added.)

 

Discussion

 

Defendant requests to bifurcate on the issues relating to punitive damages until after the liability issues have been decided and the jury has awarded actual damages and made a finding of malice, oppression, or fraud.

 

Here, according to the statute, bifurcation is mandatory. This avoids the risk that defendant's financial condition might taint the jury's determination of the underlying liability case and the issues of “oppression, fraud or malice.” (Medo v. Superior court (Raymark Indus., Inc. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 64, 67-68.) Effectively, phase one of the trial determines whether punitive damages are even warranted by considering the underlying liability case and whether there is clear and convincing evidence that defendant is guilty of malice, oppression or fraud. (Westrec Marina Mgmt., Inc. v. Jardine Ins. Brokers Orange County, Inc. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1050.) Then, in phase two, once a jury returns a verdict in plaintiff’s favor and a determination that punitive damages is warranted, the jury will be presented with evidence of the defendant’s financial condition. (Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105, 115-116.)

 

Thus, abiding by the clear language of the statute and well-established law governing the issue, the motion is GRANTED.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted.